goddammit george bryan

i guess there are many reasons you are my favorite player

but he's too beastly to be out for long

4/26/2010 1:52:27 PM

Brett Jensen's NC State hating ass was saying Sweezy had previous Armed Robbery charges

apparently some 'journalists' are still calling kicking over a tip jar 'armed robbery'

4/26/2010 1:56:47 PM

way to go douchebags

4/26/2010 1:57:07 PM

just for weed? damn!

4/26/2010 3:07:43 PM

Court dates are coming up in the next couple of weeks:

May 14th - Sweezy, Kuhn, Vermiglio, Bryan
May 20th - Sweezy (assault and battery, larceny charges)

5/9/2010 4:59:19 PM

I know this was posted earlier, but I figured I'd stick this in Sweezy's personal thread. Another court date next week for the weed.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncsu/story/7719607/

6/4/2010 2:10:33 PM

is there a reason given why the charges were dropped? does this not become public information?

6/4/2010 2:18:28 PM

from what it sounds like, the bus driver and other dude instigated it. self defense. Should of never gotten as far as it did.

6/4/2010 2:22:02 PM

it seems like he got a lucky break. I figured if he got busted for this then he would definitely be off the team.

6/4/2010 2:47:26 PM

the drug possession trial was scheduled for today - anyone heard anything?

6/11/2010 2:24:21 PM

continued to July 9th

6/12/2010 10:19:49 PM

any news on this?

7/13/2010 9:21:45 AM

Continued again, the 27th.

7/13/2010 1:09:46 PM

trial today?

7/27/2010 11:16:46 AM

yep

7/27/2010 11:51:32 AM

charges dropped against everyone except Bryan (he got a continuance)

7/27/2010 12:37:09 PM

was that because bryan couldnt be there?

He seemed like the one with the least amount of charges originally

7/27/2010 12:39:03 PM

wral is saying they have all been cleared: technicality. Officer entered room without a warrant. Can this really be happening?? No NCstate shit? However, Bryan still has to go back for the charge of "maintaining a dwelling" but i that's a more serious charge and i'm sure will get thrown out as well... party time

7/27/2010 12:45:14 PM

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncsu/story/8041461/

7/27/2010 1:29:01 PM

Not sure I buy the "needed a warrant" thing. Cops are allowed to proceed when they have reasonable cause to suspect a crime is taking place, in this case, the cop smelled weed coming from behind the door. Good for the players that they got off, but that seems awful shady to me.

7/27/2010 2:38:28 PM

Quote :

"Not sure I buy the "needed a warrant" thing."

haha, you're not sure they needed a warrant to search a residence? Sounds like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Residences are provided the most protection against search and seizure, and you pretty much always need either a warrant or consent to search them.

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2010 2:47:13 PM

I don't see where someone called the amber lamps.

7/27/2010 2:51:08 PM

Quote :

"haha, you're not sure they needed a warrant to search a residence? Sounds like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Residences are provided the most protection against search and seizure, and you pretty much always need either a warrant or consent to search them. "

Um, maybe you missed the part where I mentioned reasonable suspicion. I assure you that if a cop has a reason to suspect that a crime is being committed he can intervene without a warrant.

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ...]

7/27/2010 3:16:54 PM

haha, another pathetically ill-informed "legal expert"...reasonable suspicion has NOTHING to do with searching a residence, it's a lower burden of proof for vehicle and person stops.

7/27/2010 3:24:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine

Quote :

"The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation."

Quote :

"The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing."

So how much longer until you get your law degree?

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ...]

7/27/2010 3:30:36 PM

So is it reasonable suspicion or plain view? Because they're entirely different. But either way you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Obviously smelling a marijuana odor is not plain view.

7/27/2010 3:33:50 PM

Whatever, I had my terms mixed up. Point is, these guys got off when they shouldn't have given the circumstances. More power to them.

And, ahem:

Quote :

"The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing."

7/27/2010 3:34:54 PM

right because legal advice from wikipedia is always solid...a cursory search of the cited page shows nothing about plain smell

7/27/2010 3:37:44 PM

Dude are you blind, it's right there on the page! Where do you think I quoted it from?

And if that's not enough for you:

http://www.briantbeasley.com/?p=177

Quote :

"Officer Simpson approached the vehicle and directed defendant to roll the window down, and defendant complied. At this time, the officer detected the odor of marijuana in and around the vehicle. He asked the defendant to get out of the vehicle, and then told him that he was going to search his car. Officer Simpson found several fragments of cigarette butts which were later determined to contain marijuana and a “roach clip” with some marijuana residue on it. He also found a stolen pocketbook, which led to additional charges for Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle and Larceny. The court ruled that the officer acted appropriately."

http://www.massprosecutorsguide.com/sample/searchpvA
http://www.state.nj.us%2Flps%2Fdcj%2Fschool%2Fchap11.pdf&ei=pjNPTKfTM4H78Aa5kYnVDQ&usg=AFQjCNF2TVwC_ULsRMUgK70oG9I-MTFIRg

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plain-view-doctrine/

Quote :

"Some jurisdictions recognize a "plain-smell" exception to the requirement that law-enforcement officers obtain a warrant before conducting a search. In a case involving a police dog, one court has held that, just as evidence in plain view of officers may be searched without warrant, evidence in plain smell may be detected without warrant."

Do you want more or are you well and truly pwnt yet?

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ...]

7/27/2010 3:40:29 PM

Quote :

"Dude are you blind, it's right there on the page! Where do you think I quoted it from?"

Dude can you read? I'm talking about the citation on wikipedia, the website that they linked to to prove the "plain smell" doctrine

Also notice the examples you provide are a) a CAR stop which is not afforded the same protections against search and seizure as a house and b) in MASSACHUSETTS

You can continue to argue all you want, but there is no plain smell exception in North Carolina which is why the judge dismissed the charges.

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 3:47 PM. Reason : . ]

7/27/2010 3:46:24 PM

what xienze no smart ass response?

It was pretty obvious from the get go that you didn't know what you were talking about as you kept making specious arguments and then dropping them when they were shown to be such. Or maybe you're still scrambling to find some laughably incredible website that proves your point.

7/27/2010 4:03:32 PM

Just so we get this clear here: the cop needs a warrant.

7/27/2010 4:09:04 PM

xienze would be correct, if they had been in a car and not a home, which has been pointed out

i'm just glad the charges are dropped...hopefully the same will happen with Bryan

7/27/2010 4:12:05 PM

^^ straight from the mayor. Case closed

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ^]

7/27/2010 4:12:17 PM

Quote :

"what xienze no smart ass response?"

Sorry, I was heading home, didn't have the time to be on alert to continue arguing with you.

Quote :

"It was pretty obvious from the get go that you didn't know what you were talking about as you kept making specious arguments and then dropping them when they were shown to be such. Or maybe you're still scrambling to find some laughably incredible website that proves your point."

You were stating unequivocally that cops have no power whatsoever to search without a warrant if they smell something suspicious. To which I said bullshit (you claimed to have never heard of plain smell, again, it exists as I showed; there was at least a basis for my initial argument). And indeed, in some jurisdictions that's the case. Apparently not in NC, which I wasn't familiar with , at least as far as residences go.

I think you had it right the first time (pre-edit), before you made your snide remarks. Good lawyer plus inexperienced DA. I wouldn't take my chances being in their situation, and I don't think you would either.

7/27/2010 7:40:19 PM

^i think having a good lawyer went a long way here...most times that's the difference

7/27/2010 7:46:53 PM

Quote :

"You were stating unequivocally that cops have no power whatsoever to search without a warrant"

No I didn't, reread my first post if you don't believe me

Quote :

"you claimed to have never heard of plain smell, again, it exists as I showed"

wrong again, I said that the site that wikipedia cited as proof of plain smell contained no mention of it. The other links you posted were either unreliable sources or actually contradicted what you were saying if you had bothered to read them.

Quote :

"there was at least a basis for my initial argument"

I think the root of the problem is that you are confused about the difference between plain view and the vehicle exception to the exclusionary rule. I'm not really interested in elaborating on the matter any further, but political science classes are available at a university near you.

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2010 8:59:51 PM

Wasn't the cop off duty or was he just out of uniform? And yeah, you need a warrant.

7/28/2010 9:00:47 AM

I wouldnt be shocked if the charges were dropped prior to the next court date.

7/28/2010 2:56:07 PM